Log In

Analysis: Five ways AFACT lost the iiNet case

Food for thought as appeal deadline approaches.

The film industry has until 4.30pm today to consider whether to appeal Justice Dennis Cowdroy's historic decision in the Federal Court earlier this month to absolve ISP iiNet of the illegal file-sharing occurring among users of its network.

No doubt, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft's (AFACT) legal counsel would be poring over the judgement for potential loopholes.

But they'll also need to consider some of their mistakes in the trial.

"Strategically, the film industry failed because it tried to argue emotive grounds and use litigation as the answer to a complex problem," said Matt Dawes, copyright advisor for the Australian Digital Alliance.

iTnews has gathered up the thoughts of a panel of lawyers that watched the case to determine the five biggest mistakes the film industry made.

'Casting a pall' over internet use

Of all of Justice Cowdroy's findings, one rendered all others irrelevant. The court found that iiNet did not "authorise" the infringement of its users.

During the trial, AFACT had assumed Justice Cowdroy would see the internet through the prism of the film industry - as primarily a tool for the disruption of copyright and for little other purpose. AFACT was attempting to prove that the provision of internet access was the means of copyright infringement, working off the back of recent cases such as Moorhouse and Cooper to expand the concept of authorisation and protect content owners.

Cowdroy, however, found that the internet was a precondition to infringement, but not the means. The real means of infringement was BitTorrent, a software program the ISP is not connected with and does not control.

"The Court finds the applicants' attempt to cast a pall over internet usage, such that it is assumed to be infringing, unless otherwise shown, is unjustified," reads Cowdroy's judgement.

"The Court does not find that there is any evidence that the majority or even a substantial usage of the bandwidth allocated by the respondent to its subscribers relates to the infringement of the applicants' copyright."

While he stopped short of declaring internet access a universal human right, the judgement acknowledged that the internet plays a "central role in almost all aspects of human life."

QUT Law Professor Brian Fitzgerald believes that in this respect, the judgement was a "remarkable piece of work", in which Justice Cowdroy "exhibited a very strong understanding of the key issues."

"This has been missing from the cases so far in the digital era," Fitzgerald said. "It recognises that there is a need to balance the value of internet access to modern life, to innovation, to the modern economy."

The time didn't fit the crime

AFACT put forward an argument that because iiNet had failed to stop users infringing copyright on its network, it had "failed to take reasonable steps" to gain protection under safe harbour provisions of the Copyright Act.

But as John Fairbairn, partner at Clayton Utz points out, AFACT "held out" on defining what reasonable steps would have been beyond disconnection of a customer.

As such, there were "no other reasonable steps" the judge could focus on.

The Court found that iiNet's only power to prevent infringement - to terminate users - was not a relevant power under the Copyright Act.

Justice Cowdroy then found that cutting off access was not a reasonable step.

"The Court does not consider that warning and termination of subscriber accounts on the basis of AFACT Notices is a reasonable step," Cowdroy's judgement said, as it would "also prevent that person or persons from using the internet for all the non-infringing uses."

In doing so, Cowdroy gave full appreciation to the significance of internet access and what it means to Australians, and the role of the courts in determining infringement.

"AFACT's entire case fell down on that," Dawes said.

AFACT kept its trap methodology secret

For those unfamiliar with the details of the trial, AFACT had attempted to prove primary infringement on iiNet's network by setting up "trap purchases."

AFACT also hired DtecNet, a Danish technology company, which used software to monitor the activities of iiNet users. DtecNet investigated the networks of Optus, Internode, Exetel and iiNet. Based on this information, AFACT served copyright infringement notices.

But most of the nitty gritty of this investigative work was kept secret from iiNet - a secrecy that did not impress Justice Cowdroy.

"AFACT's notices were found to be defective because they did not establish copyright infringement as AFACT kept its methodology secret, they did not have any assurance of their veracity or indemnify iiNet for reliance, and they did not make clear AFACT's right to give them on behalf of copyright owners," said Australian Digital Alliance's Dawes.

"Thus, iiNet was entitled to be sceptical about the claims being made. Therefore it had no 'knowledge' of the alleged infringements by its users."

Determinations of infringement are complex, Cowdroy's judgement said, and should only be made by a court. To do otherwise, he said, would be "highly problematic."

"If the film industry had made it easier to demonstrate that iiNet users were abusing copyright, iiNet would have had greater responsibility to pass these notices on," Dawes said.

Dawes assumed the film industry refused to pass on the details of its investigations for one of two reasons.

Second, going into the details of this investigation may have forced DtecNet to divulge enough information for the pirate community - be it BitTorrent or some other party - to close the loopholes in its software that allowed infringement to be detected.

"It is not too disingenuous to suggest that the film industry's entire case painted any dissent on their views as extreme," said Dawes. "They demanded a finding of infringement as necessary to protect copyright owners and the Australian film industry."

This aggression did not sit well with Justice Cowdroy.

"The applicants [AFACT] have mounted a vigorous challenge to the credibility of Mr Malone, asserting that he was neither a truthful nor reliable witness," Cowdroy's judgement said.

"The Court rejects the attack on the credit of Mr Malone. Mr Malone was an impressive witness who remained consistent (for the most part) in the evidence he gave during three days of gruelling and unnecessarily hostile cross-examination.

"The Court rejected the submission that Mr Malone 'like iiNet itself, has been compromised by his extreme views on the role and responsibilities of an ISP'. Merely because the views expressed by Mr Malone did not accord with the interests of the applicants does not render those views 'extreme'."

Dawes asserted that once again, Justice Cowdroy "was not responsive to emotive arguments."

The attack on Malone's credibility also did nothing to help AFACT's chances of appeal, as Justice Cowdroy found Malone a credible witness "as a finding of fact."

"The findings of fact mean that an appeals court has to pay some deference to this," Fitzgerald said.

Senator Conroy's sideline commentary

It could also be argued that comments from Communications Minister Stephen Conroy in the lead up to the trial, which ridiculed the iiNet defence, actually ended up aiding the ISP's case.

Clayton Utz senior associate Tim Webb believed that the film industry became sidetracked with a peripheral issue to the outcome of the case - the scale of the infringement.

All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in any form without prior authorisation.Your use of this website
constitutes acceptance of nextmedia's Privacy Policy and
Terms & Conditions.